| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.740 | 1.931 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.112 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.766 | 0.134 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.320 | -0.113 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.270 | -0.083 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.490 | -0.004 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.204 | 0.111 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.290 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.168 | 0.073 |
The Universidade dos Acores presents a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.097. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly in areas of post-publication quality control, responsible authorship, and a commitment to external validation, where the institution shows a commendable disconnection from less favorable national trends. Key areas of excellence, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, include Business, Management and Accounting; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Environmental Science; and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified medium-risk vulnerabilities—notably in self-citation, selection of publication venues, and dependency on collaborative impact—could challenge universal academic values of excellence and transparency. Addressing these specific areas is crucial to ensure that the institution's perceived impact is both genuine and sustainable. Overall, the university has a strong foundation, and by focusing on these targeted areas for improvement, it can further solidify its reputation and ensure its operational practices fully support its academic and research leadership.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.740, while the national average is 1.931. Both the university and the country exhibit a medium level of activity in this area, but the institution's slightly lower score suggests a more controlled approach to a common national practice. This indicates a differentiated management style that moderates risks prevalent in the wider system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this signal suggests that the institution is successfully navigating this landscape, managing to foster collaboration without excessively inflating institutional credit through strategic "affiliation shopping," a risk that appears more pronounced at the national level.
With a Z-score of -0.428, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.112. This low-profile consistency underscores the effectiveness of its internal quality control mechanisms. Retractions are complex events, and this near-absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of responsible supervision and methodological rigor prior to publication. The data suggests that the university's integrity culture is robust, effectively preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might imply, aligning its performance with the highest national standards of scientific security.
The institution's Z-score of 0.766 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.134, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This reveals a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to these signals than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal citation patterns rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a medium-risk Z-score of 0.320, which marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.113). This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. This indicator is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The score indicates that a portion of its scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational damage and highlighting an urgent need to reinforce information literacy to avoid channeling resources into predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of 1.270, the institution shows a medium risk for hyper-authorship, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.083). This suggests a greater tendency toward extensive author lists compared to its peers. While extensive collaboration is legitimate in "Big Science," this pattern outside those contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This indicator serves as a signal to review authorship practices to ensure they reflect genuine massive collaboration rather than honorary or political attributions that compromise transparency.
The institution's Z-score of 0.490 places it at a medium-risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.004. This positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. A high value in this indicator signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its strong impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a strategic positioning in partnerships. It raises the question of whether its excellence is structural and endogenous or reliant on external drivers.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.204, indicating a very low risk in this area. This performance represents a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.111). This is a notable strength, suggesting a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes indicates that the university is effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, where authorship is assigned without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, a clear point of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 0.290). This is a strong positive signal, indicating a commitment to seeking validation through independent, external peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility of its research and shows that it is not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.168, while in the medium-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of 0.073. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor compared to its environment. This value serves as an alert for the practice of "salami slicing," where a coherent study might be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
